November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE 802.15-05-0637-01-004a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal

November 14, 2005 Doc: IEEE 802.15-05-0637-01-004a

Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide 1

Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) (WPANs)

Submission Title: [High Frequency Band Plan and Pulse Waveforms Proposal]Date Submitted: [November 14, 2005]Source: [Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi

Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno] Company [National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

(NICT)]Contact: Huan-Bang Li.Voice:[+81 46 847 5104, E-Mail: [email protected]]Abstract: [High frequency band plan and pulse waveforms proposal for DS-UWB

radios]Purpose: [Solution proposal for technical parameters to be included in 15.4a draft]Notice: This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is

offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.

Release: The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.



High Frequency Band Plan and Pulse Waveforms Proposal

Huan-Bang Li, Kenichi Takizawa, Yuko Rikuta, Shinsuke Hara, Tetsushi Ikegami, and Ryuji Kohno

National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)



Current Status of UWB-PHY • Works had been done.

– The low frequency band plan (3.1 - 4.8 GHz).– Mandatory nominal data rate (1 Mbps).– Code sequences for preamble.– Modulation scheme.

• Works are on the way.– Two peak PRF candidates for selection (494MHz vs. 247MHz). – Two FEC candidates for selection.– The high frequency band plan (above 6GHz).– Draft text.

• What else– Specification of pulse shape.



1. High frequency band plan proposal



Why High Frequency Band Plan

• Only the low frequency band plan is included in the accepted band plan (05-0250-03). The high frequency band plan has not been specified.

• Attractive characteristics compared to the low band– More available frequency bandwidths. – Few existing systems.

• The draft spectrum masks proposed by Japan and EU have been adopted as ITU recommendation, which draws strict restrictions on the low band.– DAA is required in Japan for 3.4 – 4.8 GHz.– DAA is required in EU for 3.1 – 4.95 GHz



Spectrum Masks Comparison

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DAA

3.4 4.8

“free”

7.25 10.25

Frequency (GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DAA

3.1 4.95

“free”

6.0 9.0

Frequency (GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)FCC

FCC

Japan

EU

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DAA

3.4 4.8

“free”

7.25 10.25

Frequency (GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DAA

3.1 4.95

“free”

6.0 9.0

Frequency (GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DAA

3.4 4.8

“free”

7.25 10.25

Frequency (GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DAA

3.1 4.95

“free”

6.0 9.0

Frequency (GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DAA

3.1 4.95

“free”

6.0 9.0

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

DAA

3.1 4.95

“free”

6.0 9.0

Frequency (GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)FCC

FCC

Japan

EU



Effects of Low Spectrum Mask

-41.3 dBm

-50 dBm

-70 dBm

Range (m)

Dat

a ra

te (

kbps

)

10

100

1000

2000

0 20 40 60 800 20 40 60 80

Frequency band:3.4 - 3.9 GHz



Points For The High Band Plan

• To be able to better use the “free spectrums” of both Japan and EU.

• Integer product relationship between center frequencies and PRF.

• Harmonization with the accepted low band plan (Use of the same PRF).

• Use of as small as possible prime factors.

• To take the advantage of the available bandwidth of the high frequency band.



The Proposed Band Plan

10003.596339262.5>5005

9262.588928521.5>5004

8521.581517780.5>5003 (mandatory)

895181517351~16006

2

1

Band No.

7780.574107039.5>500

7039.566696298.5>500

High Freq.(MHz)

Center Freq.(MHz)

Low Freq.(MHz)

Bandwidth(MHz)

10003.596339262.5>5005

9262.588928521.5>5004

8521.581517780.5>5003 (mandatory)

895181517351~16006

2

1

Band No.

7780.574107039.5>500

7039.566696298.5>500

High Freq.(MHz)

Center Freq.(MHz)

Low Freq.(MHz)

Bandwidth(MHz)

(GHz)

EIR

P e

mis

sion

leve

l (dB

m)

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

741MHz

- 40

- 70

741MHz 741MHz 741MHz



Prime factors: 3, 5, 11, 13

PRF GenerationCenter Freq.

(MHz)Harmonic Ratio

PRF1 (MHz)

PRF2(MHz)

PRF3(MHz)

4x3x3x36669 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

16x3x38892 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

4x11x38151 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

4x13x39633 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

8x5x37410 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

Center Freq.(MHz)

Harmonic RatioPRF1 (MHz)

PRF2(MHz)

PRF3(MHz)

4x3x3x36669 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

4x3x3x36669 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

16x3x38892 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

16x3x38892 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

4x11x38151 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

4x11x38151 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

4x13x39633 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

4x13x39633 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

8x5x37410 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375

8x5x37410 61.75

2 230.875 15.4375



PLL Reference Diagram

OscillatorReference

Divider(R)

Divider, M

Phase Det.

XTAL

FX FComp

LPF VCO

F123,c

FX (MHZ) R Fcomp (MHz)

(13,26) (64 ,128) 0.203125

(9.6,19.2) (96,192) 0.1

(12,24) (24,48) 0.5

÷4

PRF

÷ 2, 3, 5,11, 13



Fitness With Japan and EU

(GHz)

Draft mask in Japan

EIR

P (

dBm

)

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

10.25

- 40

- 70

(GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

- 40

- 70

Spectrum mask of EU

Notch toprotect radar

741 MHz

7.25

246.5101

741 MHz

741 MHz 741 MHz

Subjectto changefor radar

Common sub-band



Advantages• Harmonization with the low frequency band plan.

– Three usual frequency bands with one large optional frequency band.

– Integer product relationship between center frequencies and PRF

– The same PRF as the low-band plan.

• Fitness with the spectrum– Good use of the ‘free spectrum’ for both Japan and EU.

– Larger bandwidth occupancy than the low frequency band plan for each usual band as well as large optional frequency band



Another candidate?



Band Plan (A)

955592829009~5466

900987368463~5465

1010198289555~5467

846381907917~5464 (mandatory)

899081907390~16008

3

2

1

Band No.

791776447371~546

737170986825~546

682565526279~546

High Freq.(MHz)

Center Freq.(MHz)

Low Freq.(MHz)

Bandwidth(MHz)

955592829009~5466

900987368463~5465

1010198289555~5467

846381907917~5464 (mandatory)

899081907390~16008

3

2

1

Band No.

791776447371~546

737170986825~546

682565526279~546

High Freq.(MHz)

Center Freq.(MHz)

Low Freq.(MHz)

Bandwidth(MHz)

(GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

546MHz- 40

- 70

546MHz 546MHz546MHz546MHz546MHz

(GHz)

EIR

P (

dBm

)

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

546MHz- 40

- 70

546MHz 546MHz546MHz546MHz546MHz



Prime factors: 3, 5, 7, 13, 17

PRF Generation (A)Center Freq.

(MHz)Harmonic Ratio PRF1

(MHz)PRF2(MHz)

PRF3(MHz)

16x3x36552 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

4x13x37098 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

8x7x27644 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

4x5x3x38190 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

64x38736 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

4x17x39282 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

8x3x3x39828 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

Center Freq.(MHz)

Harmonic Ratio PRF1 (MHz)

PRF2(MHz)

PRF3(MHz)

16x3x36552 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

4x13x37098 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

8x7x27644 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

4x5x3x38190 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

64x38736 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

4x17x39282 45.5 2 222.75 11.375

8x3x3x39828 45.5 2 222.75 11.375



PLL Reference Diagram (A)

OscillatorReference

Divider(R)

Divider, M

Phase Det.

XTAL

FX FComp

LPF VCO

F123,c

FX (MHZ) R Fcomp (MHz)

(13,26) (64 ,128) 0.203125

(9.6,19.2) (96,192) 0.1

(12,24) (24,48) 0.5

÷4

PRF

÷ 2, 3, 5,7, 13, 17



View From Japan and EU (A)

(GHz)

Draft mask in JapanE

IRP

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

10.25

149- 40

- 707.25

546MHz 546MHz 546MHz 546MHz

121

(GHz)

Draft mask in JapanE

IRP

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

10.25

149- 40

- 707.25


121

7.25


121

(GHz)

EIR

P

5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

- 40

- 70

Spectrum mask of EU


Notch toprotect radar

Subjectto changefor radar



Facts of Band Plan (A)

• Advantages– Three common sub bands for Japan and EU.– Efficient use of channels (more available sub

bands).

• Disadvantages– Different PRF from the low band plan.– Same bandwidth with the low frequency band plan



2. Pulse waveforms proposal



What’s the Problem?

• In the agreement of baseline, we only decided to use ‘deterministic pulse’. However, when a pair of transceiver with different pulse waveforms talk each other, they may mismatch each other if we don’t give a definition or specification.

• Although we have some proposals on pulse waveforms, no decision has been reached so far.

• Optional pulse waveforms on table include chirp, chaotic, and …



Proposed Solution• To restrict the mandatory pulse waveforms by defining a ‘mandatory

waveform group’. Pulses in this group must meet some conditions– Pulse width (Because of the peak PRF used, this parameter may greatly affect

the non-coherent receiver’s performance. E.g., less than 2 ns?).

– Similarity and interoperability (Pulses in this group can detect each other without obvious performance loss, e.g., less than 3 dB?)

• Based on the above observation, we propose the following pulse shapes for the ‘mandatory group’.– Gaussian (including bell-shaped Gaussian)

– Root Raised Cosine (RRC)

– Other pulses meet the above conditions.



2.1 Interoperability between Gaussian and RRC



Simulation System Block Diagram

FECK=3 conv

FECK=3 conv

MOD2PPM ＋ BPSK

MOD2PPM ＋ BPSK

Pulse shaping(RRC or Gaussian filter)

Pulse shaping(RRC or Gaussian filter)

VITERBIVITERBIDEMODDEMOD

Filtering(RRC or Gaussian filter)

Filtering(RRC or Gaussian filter)

Transmitter

Receiver

fc

fc

Pulse shaping(Gaussian filter)Pulse shaping

(Gaussian filter)

fc

Filtering(Gaussian filter)

Filtering(Gaussian filter)

fc



Simulation Results

R: Root-raise cosine wavef orm(Roll-off factor =0.3)

G: Gaussian wavef orm

Tx-Rx

Eb/ N0 [dB]

aver

age

PER

AWGN

R-RG-G

2PPM+BPSKPRF = 494MHzK=3 convolutional code

R-GG-R

Mismatch

0 4 8 12 1610-3

10-2

10-1

100

less than .5dB loss



2.2 Optional chirp



Statements in the Baseline

• Potential for optional chirp mode (at best where allowed).

– It is confirmed by the Japanese regulatory body (MIC) that chirp signaling UWB is compliant in Japan.

• Add chirp specifically for UWB as SOP mechanism

– This has been shown in our previous documents (05-0300-00).



Simulation Block Diagram for SOP

Desiredtransmitter

Undesiredtransmitter A Receiver

Channel

Channel

Undesiredtransmitter B

Channel

Undesiredtransmitter C

ChannelDevices in the same piconet

Devices of

Otherpiconets

Pc

Pi

Pi

Pi



Simulation results for SOP

1.0E-5

1.0E-4

1.0E-3

1.0E-2

1.0E-1

1.0E+0

-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Eb/N0= 6dBEb/N0=10dBEb/N0=15dB

Chirp DS

Pc/Pi dB)

BE

R

1.0E-5

1.0E-4

1.0E-3

1.0E-2

1.0E-1

1.0E+0

-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 01.0E-5

1.0E-4

1.0E-3

1.0E-2

1.0E-1

1.0E+0

1.0E-5

1.0E-4

1.0E-3

1.0E-2

1.0E-1

1.0E+0

-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0-10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

Eb/N0= 6dBEb/N0=10dBEb/N0=15dB

Chirp DSEb/N0= 6dBEb/N0=10dBEb/N0=15dB

Chirp DS

Pc/Pi dB)

BE

R



2.3 Optional continuous spectrum pulse (05-0544-00)



CS Pulse Examples

Gaussian without CS

1ns/1GHz CS

5ns/1GHz CS

10ns/1GHz CS



Mismatch Detection (CS Receiver)

InverseCS-Filter

-10ns delay/GHzcos

sin

| |Transmitter

Gaussian (0ns delay)+10ns delay/GHz-10ns delay/GHz

LPF Output

DSCSCSCS



Mismatch Detection (DS Receiver)

Transmitter

Gaussian (0ns delay)+10ns delay/GHz-10ns delay/GHz

cos

sin

| |LPF Output

CSDS



Block Diagram For SOP Simulation(Case of Receiver with Optional CS)

1-SOP

Delay: 10ns/GHz

Delay: -10ns/GHz

DS-UWBTransmitterDS-UWB

Transmitter

CSfilterCSfilter


Transmitter

DS-UWBReceiverDS-UWBReceiver

CSFilter -1

CSFilter -1

Delay: 10ns/GHz

Delay: -10ns/GHz


Transmitter


Transmitter

2-SOP

CSfilterCSfilter


Transmitter

DS-UWBReceiverDS-UWBReceiver

CSFilter -1

CSFilter -1



Block Diagram For SOP Simulation(Case of DS-only Receiver)

1-SOP

Delay: 10ns/GHz


Transmitter

CSfilterCSfilter


Transmitter

Delay: 10ns/GHz


Transmitter

2-SOP

CSfilterCSfilter


Transmitter

DS-UWBReceiverDS-UWBReceiver DS-UWB

ReceiverDS-UWBReceiver

CSfilterCSfilter


Transmitter

Delay: -10ns/GHz



Enhanced SOP With CS Filteringav

erag

e P

ER

SIR [dB]

DS-UWBDS-UWB with CS filter

peak PRF = 30.875MHzCM8

Coherent detection

1-SOP

2-SOP

-36 -34 -32 -30 -28 -26 -2410-3

10-2

10-1

100

CS DS has the similar performance as DS CS because of the symmetry.



Advantages of Chirp Filtering(Compared to DS-only Devices)

To support SOP, CS filtering provides additional anti-interference ability. In comparison with DS-only piconets,

• Piconets with different CS filtering can reduce the interference against each other (additionally larger SIR). (CS CS)

• Piconet with CS filtering can reduce the interference from DS-only piconets (additionally larger SIR).

(DS CS)• DS-only piconet receivers smaller interference from piconets with CS

filtering (additionally larger SIR).

(CS DS)



Conclusion Remarks

• The high frequency band plan proposal.

– Harmonization with the low frequency band plan.(the same PRF, three sub-band + one large band)

– Better use of the draft spectrums of Japan and EU.(one common sub-band, large bandwidth for each sub-band)

• Pulse waveform proposal

– Mandatory group of pulse waveforms.– Optional chirp signaling.– Optional continuous spectrum (CS) filtering.

Documents

November 14, 2005Doc: IEEE 802.15-05-0637-01-004a Li, Takizawa, Rikuta, Hara, Ikegami, Kohno Slide1 Project: IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal